CENTER STAGE

[OKTexas]

Tell me, what medical test is used to prove someone is naturally gay? Oh right, there isn't one, we're expected to grant them special rights and protections because they say so. No way that could ever go wrong.

You are going to carry this on, but I am about through. Some people may be naturally gay, I think. I have seen very young boys who seem to have feminine qualities. That is before they have a lick of sense about sexuality. What about "TOM BOYS " who turn out to be lesbians. Who knows...I really don't.

That's my point, no one really knows because there is no objective way to measure, yet you're all for granting them rights subjectively and telling everyone they have no choice but to accept it. That's no way to run a society.

Why shouldn't I want them to have equal rights? There is absolutely no reason why a taxpaying American citizen should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other taxpaying American citizen. Their sex lives are of no concern to me. It doesn't bother me because I am secure in my sexuality.

They already had the exact same rights of every other tax paying citizen of their gender. Their sex life is irrelevant until you want to give them something based on their sex life.

They obviously didn't. Your argument is akin to claiming that interracial marriage laws were valid because they applied to both blacks and whites. THus, the law was applied 'equally'. The ban itself must meet constitutional muster.

And neither interracial marriage bans nor same sex marriage bans did.

Wrong, race is determined by genetics, it's not a choice or preference.

 

[ChrisL]

It's not a preference. A person cannot control or help who he or she is sexually attracted to. You don't choose who you are attracted to. It just IS.

So if someone is attracted to children through no fault of their own you're just fine with that...
You show the depth of your sickness with every post.

Again we are talking abut laws. Crimes against children is against those standing laws just as the discrimination laws.

But you're fine with discriminating against Christians.
You people are so twisted it's pathetic.

HOW are Christians being discriminated against?

You are forcing them to accept homosexual situations when they dont believe in them.
That you cant figure that out makes you a retard.

Oh, and I am not forcing anyone to do anything. Lol. Stop being dramatic. I thought you were a man?

 

[ChrisL]

You are going to carry this on, but I am about through. Some people may be naturally gay, I think. I have seen very young boys who seem to have feminine qualities. That is before they have a lick of sense about sexuality. What about "TOM BOYS " who turn out to be lesbians. Who knows...I really don't.

That's my point, no one really knows because there is no objective way to measure, yet you're all for granting them rights subjectively and telling everyone they have no choice but to accept it. That's no way to run a society.

Why shouldn't I want them to have equal rights? There is absolutely no reason why a taxpaying American citizen should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other taxpaying American citizen. Their sex lives are of no concern to me. It doesn't bother me because I am secure in my sexuality.

They already had the exact same rights of every other tax paying citizen of their gender. Their sex life is irrelevant until you want to give them something based on their sex life.

They obviously didn't. Your argument is akin to claiming that interracial marriage laws were valid because they applied to both blacks and whites. THus, the law was applied 'equally'. The ban itself must meet constitutional muster.

And neither interracial marriage bans nor same sex marriage bans did.

Wrong, race is determined by genetics, it's not a choice or preference.

So, you actually think that people CHOOSE to be gay? Yes, because they just love being called sinners, being discriminated against, and making their own lives more difficult than they have to be, right?

 

[Jackson]

You are going to carry this on, but I am about through. Some people may be naturally gay, I think. I have seen very young boys who seem to have feminine qualities. That is before they have a lick of sense about sexuality. What about "TOM BOYS " who turn out to be lesbians. Who knows...I really don't.

That's my point, no one really knows because there is no objective way to measure, yet you're all for granting them rights subjectively and telling everyone they have no choice but to accept it. That's no way to run a society.

Why shouldn't I want them to have equal rights? There is absolutely no reason why a taxpaying American citizen should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other taxpaying American citizen. Their sex lives are of no concern to me. It doesn't bother me because I am secure in my sexuality.

They already had the exact same rights of every other tax paying citizen of their gender. Their sex life is irrelevant until you want to give them something based on their sex life.

They obviously didn't. Your argument is akin to claiming that interracial marriage laws were valid because they applied to both blacks and whites. THus, the law was applied 'equally'. The ban itself must meet constitutional muster.

And neither interracial marriage bans nor same sex marriage bans did.

Wrong, race is determined by genetics, it's not a choice or preference.

And we don't know about homosexuals.

 

[Skylar]

You are going to carry this on, but I am about through. Some people may be naturally gay, I think. I have seen very young boys who seem to have feminine qualities. That is before they have a lick of sense about sexuality. What about "TOM BOYS " who turn out to be lesbians. Who knows...I really don't.

That's my point, no one really knows because there is no objective way to measure, yet you're all for granting them rights subjectively and telling everyone they have no choice but to accept it. That's no way to run a society.

Why shouldn't I want them to have equal rights? There is absolutely no reason why a taxpaying American citizen should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other taxpaying American citizen. Their sex lives are of no concern to me. It doesn't bother me because I am secure in my sexuality.

They already had the exact same rights of every other tax paying citizen of their gender. Their sex life is irrelevant until you want to give them something based on their sex life.

They obviously didn't. Your argument is akin to claiming that interracial marriage laws were valid because they applied to both blacks and whites. THus, the law was applied 'equally'. The ban itself must meet constitutional muster.

And neither interracial marriage bans nor same sex marriage bans did.

Wrong, race is determined by genetics, it's not a choice or preference.

Genetics or preference, gays still have civil rights and are protected by the constitution. And that includes the right to marry. You say they already had the same rights as everyone else. The courts obviously disagreed. And have, again and again, for the last 20 years.

 

[Jackson]

So if someone is attracted to children through no fault of their own you're just fine with that...
You show the depth of your sickness with every post.

Again we are talking abut laws. Crimes against children is against those standing laws just as the discrimination laws.

But you're fine with discriminating against Christians.
You people are so twisted it's pathetic.

HOW are Christians being discriminated against?

You are forcing them to accept homosexual situations when they dont believe in them.
That you cant figure that out makes you a retard.

Oh, and I am not forcing anyone to do anything. Lol. Stop being dramatic. I thought you were a man?

With a little feminine traits...

 

[OKTexas]

What is the law based on?

Civil Rights I would assume.

Could you be more specific, I know of no civil right that protects preferences. Well except the ones recently pulled out of thin air.

It's not a preference. A person cannot control or help who he or she is sexually attracted to. You don't choose who you are attracted to. It just IS.

Really, then how did sooooooooooooooooo many gays have children the old fashioned way?

Just because you go along with something doesn't mean you're "into" it. Ask any woman. Lol.

Might work for a woman, not so much for a man.

 

[ChrisL]

Civil Rights I would assume.

Could you be more specific, I know of no civil right that protects preferences. Well except the ones recently pulled out of thin air.

It's not a preference. A person cannot control or help who he or she is sexually attracted to. You don't choose who you are attracted to. It just IS.

Really, then how did sooooooooooooooooo many gays have children the old fashioned way?

Just because you go along with something doesn't mean you're "into" it. Ask any woman. Lol.

Might work for a woman, not so much for a man.

Oh please, who do you think you're fooling. You guys are sluts.

 

[OKTexas]

That's my point, no one really knows because there is no objective way to measure, yet you're all for granting them rights subjectively and telling everyone they have no choice but to accept it. That's no way to run a society.

Why shouldn't I want them to have equal rights? There is absolutely no reason why a taxpaying American citizen should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other taxpaying American citizen. Their sex lives are of no concern to me. It doesn't bother me because I am secure in my sexuality.

They already had the exact same rights of every other tax paying citizen of their gender. Their sex life is irrelevant until you want to give them something based on their sex life.

They obviously didn't. Your argument is akin to claiming that interracial marriage laws were valid because they applied to both blacks and whites. THus, the law was applied 'equally'. The ban itself must meet constitutional muster.

And neither interracial marriage bans nor same sex marriage bans did.

Wrong, race is determined by genetics, it's not a choice or preference.

So, you actually think that people CHOOSE to be gay? Yes, because they just love being called sinners, being discriminated against, and making their own lives more difficult than they have to be, right?

There are many people in this world that chose to make their lives harder than they need to be, gays aren't special in that respect.

 

[Carla_Danger]

HereWeGoAgain:

Here is an excerpt from a similar case in Colorado, Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

They can go somewhere else and I'm tired of the double standards.

Was this guy free to go to a rap concert?
Bystanders laugh at man beaten to a pulp in chilling video New York Post

This is apples and oranges.

How can you demand the right to state-sanctioned discrimination against same-sex couples in public accommodations and justify that demand by referring to an awful criminal incident where a white man was beaten by black men?

I don't understand the connection you're trying to make or how the issue of "double standards" somehow applies. Please elaborate.

Seems to me the state trampled on the store owners religious rights.

I don't think so. They can believe what ever they want.

No he cant. The state forced him to violate his religion.

Sounds like he needs to open a church instead of a business that's open to the public.

 

[Skylar]

Why shouldn't I want them to have equal rights? There is absolutely no reason why a taxpaying American citizen should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other taxpaying American citizen. Their sex lives are of no concern to me. It doesn't bother me because I am secure in my sexuality.

They already had the exact same rights of every other tax paying citizen of their gender. Their sex life is irrelevant until you want to give them something based on their sex life.

They obviously didn't. Your argument is akin to claiming that interracial marriage laws were valid because they applied to both blacks and whites. THus, the law was applied 'equally'. The ban itself must meet constitutional muster.

And neither interracial marriage bans nor same sex marriage bans did.

Wrong, race is determined by genetics, it's not a choice or preference.

So, you actually think that people CHOOSE to be gay? Yes, because they just love being called sinners, being discriminated against, and making their own lives more difficult than they have to be, right?

There are many people in this world that chose to make their lives harder than they need to be, gays aren't special in that respect.

Their lives have gotten considerably easier since the courts invalidated all the laws targeting them and stripping them of rights.

 

[ChrisL]

Why shouldn't I want them to have equal rights? There is absolutely no reason why a taxpaying American citizen should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other taxpaying American citizen. Their sex lives are of no concern to me. It doesn't bother me because I am secure in my sexuality.

They already had the exact same rights of every other tax paying citizen of their gender. Their sex life is irrelevant until you want to give them something based on their sex life.

They obviously didn't. Your argument is akin to claiming that interracial marriage laws were valid because they applied to both blacks and whites. THus, the law was applied 'equally'. The ban itself must meet constitutional muster.

And neither interracial marriage bans nor same sex marriage bans did.

Wrong, race is determined by genetics, it's not a choice or preference.

So, you actually think that people CHOOSE to be gay? Yes, because they just love being called sinners, being discriminated against, and making their own lives more difficult than they have to be, right?

There are many people in this world that chose to make their lives harder than they need to be, gays aren't special in that respect.

I really doubt that they choose to be gay. It just is. Nobody knows why or how. It is what it is. I don't know why some of you are so bothered by gay people and their sex lives. It's really quite silly when you give it some thought. They are just people.

 

[OKTexas]

That's my point, no one really knows because there is no objective way to measure, yet you're all for granting them rights subjectively and telling everyone they have no choice but to accept it. That's no way to run a society.

Why shouldn't I want them to have equal rights? There is absolutely no reason why a taxpaying American citizen should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other taxpaying American citizen. Their sex lives are of no concern to me. It doesn't bother me because I am secure in my sexuality.

They already had the exact same rights of every other tax paying citizen of their gender. Their sex life is irrelevant until you want to give them something based on their sex life.

They obviously didn't. Your argument is akin to claiming that interracial marriage laws were valid because they applied to both blacks and whites. THus, the law was applied 'equally'. The ban itself must meet constitutional muster.

And neither interracial marriage bans nor same sex marriage bans did.

Wrong, race is determined by genetics, it's not a choice or preference.

Genetics or preference, gays still have civil rights and are protected by the constitution. And that includes the right to marry. You say they already had the same rights as everyone else. The courts obviously disagreed. And have, again and again, for the last 20 years.

They already had the right to marry and have been for thousands of years. Our courts have decided they need to be the social engineers and they're wrong.

 

[ChrisL]

Why shouldn't I want them to have equal rights? There is absolutely no reason why a taxpaying American citizen should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other taxpaying American citizen. Their sex lives are of no concern to me. It doesn't bother me because I am secure in my sexuality.

They already had the exact same rights of every other tax paying citizen of their gender. Their sex life is irrelevant until you want to give them something based on their sex life.

They obviously didn't. Your argument is akin to claiming that interracial marriage laws were valid because they applied to both blacks and whites. THus, the law was applied 'equally'. The ban itself must meet constitutional muster.

And neither interracial marriage bans nor same sex marriage bans did.

Wrong, race is determined by genetics, it's not a choice or preference.

Genetics or preference, gays still have civil rights and are protected by the constitution. And that includes the right to marry. You say they already had the same rights as everyone else. The courts obviously disagreed. And have, again and again, for the last 20 years.

They already had the right to marry and have been for thousands of years. Our courts have decided they need to be the social engineers and they're wrong.

They want to marry the person of their choice. Why do they need YOUR approval? Why?

 

[Skylar]

Why shouldn't I want them to have equal rights? There is absolutely no reason why a taxpaying American citizen should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other taxpaying American citizen. Their sex lives are of no concern to me. It doesn't bother me because I am secure in my sexuality.

They already had the exact same rights of every other tax paying citizen of their gender. Their sex life is irrelevant until you want to give them something based on their sex life.

They obviously didn't. Your argument is akin to claiming that interracial marriage laws were valid because they applied to both blacks and whites. THus, the law was applied 'equally'. The ban itself must meet constitutional muster.

And neither interracial marriage bans nor same sex marriage bans did.

Wrong, race is determined by genetics, it's not a choice or preference.

Genetics or preference, gays still have civil rights and are protected by the constitution. And that includes the right to marry. You say they already had the same rights as everyone else. The courts obviously disagreed. And have, again and again, for the last 20 years.

They already had the right to marry and have been for thousands of years. Our courts have decided they need to be the social engineers and they're wrong.

Again, the marriage bans themselves must meet constitutional muster. And same sex marriage bans couldn't.

The courts were right to invalidate them. Just like they were right to overturn DOMA. Just like they were right to overturn laws that specifically targeted gays. Just as they were right to overturn sodomy laws.

You're on the wrong side of history. Though in fairness, Texas usually is.

 

[OKTexas]

They already had the exact same rights of every other tax paying citizen of their gender. Their sex life is irrelevant until you want to give them something based on their sex life.

They obviously didn't. Your argument is akin to claiming that interracial marriage laws were valid because they applied to both blacks and whites. THus, the law was applied 'equally'. The ban itself must meet constitutional muster.

And neither interracial marriage bans nor same sex marriage bans did.

Wrong, race is determined by genetics, it's not a choice or preference.

So, you actually think that people CHOOSE to be gay? Yes, because they just love being called sinners, being discriminated against, and making their own lives more difficult than they have to be, right?

There are many people in this world that chose to make their lives harder than they need to be, gays aren't special in that respect.

Their lives have gotten considerably easier since the courts invalidated all the laws targeting them and stripping them of rights.

Murders lives would be easier if the courts decided lives don't matter, wouldn't make it right.

 

[Skylar]

They obviously didn't. Your argument is akin to claiming that interracial marriage laws were valid because they applied to both blacks and whites. THus, the law was applied 'equally'. The ban itself must meet constitutional muster.

And neither interracial marriage bans nor same sex marriage bans did.

Wrong, race is determined by genetics, it's not a choice or preference.

So, you actually think that people CHOOSE to be gay? Yes, because they just love being called sinners, being discriminated against, and making their own lives more difficult than they have to be, right?

There are many people in this world that chose to make their lives harder than they need to be, gays aren't special in that respect.

Their lives have gotten considerably easier since the courts invalidated all the laws targeting them and stripping them of rights.

Murders lives would be easier if the courts decided lives don't matter, wouldn't make it right.

Gays aren't 'murderers'. Rendering your analogy yet another example of panty shitting hyperbole.

Try again. This time without the fainting couch and running eye liner.

Sodomy laws, over turned (Thank you Texas!) Laws targeting gays, overturned. DOMA, overturned. State same sex marriage bans, overturned.

And each step making the lives of gays and lesbians easier, more comfortable, and more free from injust laws and unconstitutional abrogation of their rights.

As it should be.

 

[OKTexas]

They already had the exact same rights of every other tax paying citizen of their gender. Their sex life is irrelevant until you want to give them something based on their sex life.

They obviously didn't. Your argument is akin to claiming that interracial marriage laws were valid because they applied to both blacks and whites. THus, the law was applied 'equally'. The ban itself must meet constitutional muster.

And neither interracial marriage bans nor same sex marriage bans did.

Wrong, race is determined by genetics, it's not a choice or preference.

Genetics or preference, gays still have civil rights and are protected by the constitution. And that includes the right to marry. You say they already had the same rights as everyone else. The courts obviously disagreed. And have, again and again, for the last 20 years.

They already had the right to marry and have been for thousands of years. Our courts have decided they need to be the social engineers and they're wrong.

They want to marry the person of their choice. Why do they need YOUR approval? Why?

My 6 year old niece once said she wanted to marry me, should we allow her a choice?

 

[ChrisL]

They obviously didn't. Your argument is akin to claiming that interracial marriage laws were valid because they applied to both blacks and whites. THus, the law was applied 'equally'. The ban itself must meet constitutional muster.

And neither interracial marriage bans nor same sex marriage bans did.

Wrong, race is determined by genetics, it's not a choice or preference.

Genetics or preference, gays still have civil rights and are protected by the constitution. And that includes the right to marry. You say they already had the same rights as everyone else. The courts obviously disagreed. And have, again and again, for the last 20 years.

They already had the right to marry and have been for thousands of years. Our courts have decided they need to be the social engineers and they're wrong.

They want to marry the person of their choice. Why do they need YOUR approval? Why?

My 6 year old niece once said she wanted to marry me, should we allow her a choice?

Are you being serious? No . . . you can't be. That is one of the MOST stupid things ever.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I have to butt in here. She is not accepting the word of gays...she is following the law. Now if you want to talk about politics, religion in general, or baseball teams, we might have something in common. It isn't that she is enamoured with gays.

What is the law based on?

Civil Rights I would assume.

Could you be more specific, I know of no civil right that protects preferences. Well except the ones recently pulled out of thin air.

It's not a preference. A person cannot control or help who he or she is sexually attracted to. You don't choose who you are attracted to. It just IS.

So if someone is attracted to children through no fault of their own you're just fine with that...
You show the depth of your sickness with every post.

If they act on that attraction, they'll end up in prison...hopefully. You just can't seem to stay on topic, can you?